Case Brief: Please edit for grammar, and convert citations and sources to bluebook format

I need assistance in editing checking for grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation and converting citations and reference to bluebook format according to the example I have attached. Added in text citations need to be added throughout the Case Brief. The Case Brief assignment attached to this order is the one that needs to be worked on. The example is how it should be formatted. Please make any adjustments you feel are necessary but do not copy and paste. Everything needs remain paraphrased.
case_brief_example.docx

case_brief_assignment.docx

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Case Brief: Please edit for grammar, and convert citations and sources to bluebook format
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

case_brief_example.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chase K Wood Student ID# 4667665
Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Defendant
State of Arizona, Plaintiff
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 by Phoenix Police Department for
kidnapping and rape after the victim identified Miranda from a police lineup. Miranda
was taken in to interrogation where he was questioned for approximately two hours by
two police officers. Miranda signed a written confession to the kidnapping and rape. Prior
to questioning Miranda was never advised of his legal rights to remain silent or his right
to legal counsel. The confession that was signed by Miranda stated the confession was
given voluntarily and he was advised of his rights. Miranda was convicted largely based
on the signed confession. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years for each count.1
Procedural History: Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. Miranda appealed
to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
lower court stating Miranda never asked for counsel.
Issue: Are law enforcement officials required to notify a person in custody of their 5th
amendment rights prior to questioning?
Holding: Statements made by an individual that is in police custody can on be admissible
in court if the individual was first advised of their rights 5th amendment rights prior to
questioning. Those rights include their right to remain silent, that anything they say can
and will be used against them in court of law, that they have the right to have attorney
present during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed prior to questioning if they so desire. The court also stated, “the prosecution
may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we
mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”2
1
Expanding Civil Rights – Landmark Cases, PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html (last visited May 19, 2016).
2
Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v. Arizona, UNITED STATES COURTS,
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-varizona (last visited May 19, 2016).
Reasoning: The U.S. Supreme court actually reviewed four cases when reviewing
Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona was the first case so it became the face of the
judgment. The other cases were: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and
California v. Stewart.2 All the cases were in regards to violation of an individuals 5th
amendment rights.
The court expressed the need for limitations when a person was placed into police
custody or their freedom of movement was restricted. It further said that all suspects must
be advised of their 5th amendment rights prior to questioning. It also stated that once a
person invoked their 5th amendment rights that all questioning would discontinued.
Justice Tom Clark argued that the Due Process Clauses the Constitution would apply to
interrogations. As the majority finds, there is not enough evidence for the need of a new
rule. Judge John Harlan wrote in the second dissent that the Due Process Clauses should
apply and “the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to
forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination”. 3 Justice Byron White argued
against broadening the 5th Amendment, stating that there was no historical support and the
majority was making new law.3
Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. The judgment of the
Supreme Court of Arizona was reversed.
Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark case and probably one of the most well
known cases in the United States. It created what is known today as “Miranda Rights”.
Every law enforcement officer is taught this from day one and most carry a card with
them at all times. Although well known, it is also misunderstood. Many criminals think
you have to read them their rights before they can be arrested.
Case Brief Rubric
(Abbreviated Version)
Category
Points
Format
10/10
Facts
10/10
Issues
7/10
Holding
9/10
Reasoning
35/40
3
Miranda v. Arizona, CASEBRIEFS MIRANDA V ARIZONA COMMENTS,
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/policeinterrogation-and-confessions/miranda-v-arizona-2/2/ (last visited May 19, 2016).
Writing
Bluebook
TOTAL
10 /10
10 /10
Chase,
Good job on this brief. There are several issues in this case, and
it’s more than just whether police have an obligation to notify a
91/100
th
suspect in custody of his 5 Amendment rights. For instance, there’s also the 6th Amendment
right to counsel. Beyond that, you do a good job of capturing the essential parts of the case.
Please try not to quote at length (or at all) from the case but instead put the Court’s thoughts
in your own words. Thank you.
GRADE: 91/100
Please refer to full rubric for more details
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
CASE BRIEF
Prepared for the Legal Studies Program
Institution
Date
I.
PARTIES:
The defendants in the case were Miranda, Vignera, Westover, and Stewart who were also
the appellants while the plaintiff was Arizona, the New York Police, United States local police,
and Californian police and FBI who were the appellees.
II.
FACTS:
The case involved Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda against Arizona. There
were four cases involved that carried out interrogations of the custodians. The defendants in all
the four cases were questioned by the detectives, the police officers as well as the prosecuting
attorney who separated them from the rest of the people. None of the defendants in the cases had
the complete warning on the rights that they had while undergoing the interrogation. Most of the
interrogations were oral and one of them involved the signing of a statement. The first case in
384 U.S.436 (1966) was Miranda v. Arizona where the defendant was taken prison then was
taken to the police premises due to kidnapping concerns. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86
S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). A complaint witness identified him and after a two-hour
interrogation with the police and oral and written confession presented to the jury. He had,
however, not been informed of his rights as provided for in the Fifth Amendment and all the
evidence on his confession were used for his trial. Miranda was later charged with assault and
sexual violence and it was decided that he would serve a minimum of 20 years jail term for the
crimes. An appeal was to a higher court in Arizona determined that the appellant never had a fair
trial based on a violation of some of the rights he was entitled to.
Another case, Vignera v. New York: the trialed was taken prison by the plaintiff as they
were suspected of stealing from a fashion stall. The police took the charged to their headquarters
and he admitted orally to robbery and was then arrested formally. He was sentenced to thirty to
sixty years jail term and there was an affirmation of the apprehension in the absence of the
consent of the higher courts. Westover v. the United States involved the arraigned, which was
apprehended by the local law forces in Kansas for suspected robberies. Westover was also a
suspect according to the FBI report owing to another crime in another state. He had a questioning
session the same evening he was arrested and the morning after and had separate confessions for
the police and FBI interrogations. The defendant had committed a theft crime and had to be held
behind bars for at least fifteen years. In California v. Stewart’s case that investigated a series of a
purse –snatch robberies. Stewart was identified as one of the robbers and was arrested in his
house by the police and was placed in the cell for five days while being interrogated. Four other
people were later arrested following Stewart’s interrogations. Stewart was sentenced to a death
penalty due to first-degree murder although the California Supreme court reversed the holding.
1
III.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The trial Court of Arizona found Miranda guilty of committing both rape and kidnapping
and on an appeal made to the Supreme Court, there was an affirmation of the conviction as
Miranda never sought counsel. The accused then appealed the case together with other
defendants and it was taken to the Supreme Court for further analysis.
IV.
ISSUE:
Were the statements were taken from the accused questionable by the law enforcement
officers? Were steps which assured the person of their privilege based on the Fifth Amendment
compelled to incriminate the accused?
V.
HOLDING:
The court declared its stand on the on the Fifth Amendment privilege that was outside the
court proceedings needed to protect the people in all the settings. The freedom of action of the
parties was curtained and they were protected from self-incrimination. It was also provided, “the
prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”( LII Staff, Fifth Amendment
LII).The custodial interrogation meant that the questioning was to be initiated by the law
enforcers when the suspect was detained or if their liberty was not issued.The other holding of
the court was, “without proper safeguards of the process in-custody interrogation of the persons
suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to
undermine the individual’s will to resist and compel him to speak where he would otherwise do
so freely” (LII Staff, Fifth Amendment LII), the defendant then had to be warned pre-hand of the
right of silence because his opinions may have been used against him and they also had a right to
an attorney.
VI.
REASONING:
According to Justice Tom Clark, the process had the fifth and the fourteenth amendment
clauses which needed to be applied during the interrogation process. He also pointed out that the
evidence given was not sufficient for the majority. Justice Harlan, on the other hand, argued that
the rule in the Fifth Amendment was never to be used to incriminate the accused and also put
possible pressure on them. Historical support in his view which would lay claim to the Fifth
Amendment on the majority rights contributed to the decisions made. It was also reasoned based
on the Fifth Amendment that if someone chose not to speak at first and seek the services of an
attorney interrogations needed to be stopped and the government would not have an argument on
the rule of notification. The rule of law and the Legal principal was also used to where the
accused were informed of their constitutional rights and in the case where they could not afford
an attorney, they would get one hired for them. The Escobedo v. Illinois,3 78 U.S 478 (1964)
was used following the procedures are taken by the police in the interrogation process. Escobedo
v. Illinois,3 78 U.S 478 (1964). The common schemes used by the police to unfold investigations
were also held accountable as their main aim normally is to get confessions regardless of the
means used. False promised made by the police were held as they were used to make the person
vulnerable and some ended up making decisions that impaired.
2
VII.
DECISION:
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of Arizona in the case against Miranda and that
made by the New York Appellant courts in Vignera case, and one by the Court of Appeal in
Westover. In Stewart’s case, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling by the lower courts. The
reversal judgment was led by the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren.
VIII.
COMMENTS:
The Miranda v. Arizona case was significant given that it acted as a landmark that was
used to develop the ‘Miranda’s’ warnings. Such warnings were pivotal in the security of people’s
rights especially when they had been reprimanded (Carl Metzgar). The weakness in the case is
that statements which were spontaneous were used and there was no solid evidence regarding the
given confessions as the means used by police were coercive which led the accused to yield;
nothing supported most of the conclusions made. Voluntariness according to the definition of the
court was also inconsistent based on the precedents given.
Bibliography
Escobedo v. Illinois,3 78 U.S 478 (1964)
LII Staff, Fifth Amendment LII / Legal Information Institute (2017),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment (last visited Apr 22, 2018).
3
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
Carl Metzgar CSP, A. R. M. “Miranda v. Arizona.” Professional Safety 55.11 (2010): 7.
4
Chase K Wood Student ID# 4667665
Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Defendant
State of Arizona, Plaintiff
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 by Phoenix Police Department for
kidnapping and rape after the victim identified Miranda from a police lineup. Miranda
was taken in to interrogation where he was questioned for approximately two hours by
two police officers. Miranda signed a written confession to the kidnapping and rape. Prior
to questioning Miranda was never advised of his legal rights to remain silent or his right
to legal counsel. The confession that was signed by Miranda stated the confession was
given voluntarily and he was advised of his rights. Miranda was convicted largely based
on the signed confession. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years for each count.1
Procedural History: Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. Miranda appealed
to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
lower court stating Miranda never asked for counsel.
Issue: Are law enforcement officials required to notify a person in custody of their 5th
amendment rights prior to questioning?
Holding: Statements made by an individual that is in police custody can on be admissible
in court if the individual was first advised of their rights 5th amendment rights prior to
questioning. Those rights include their right to remain silent, that anything they say can
and will be used against them in court of law, that they have the right to have attorney
present during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed prior to questioning if they so desire. The court also stated, “the prosecution
may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we
mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”2
1
Expanding Civil Rights – Landmark Cases, PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html (last visited May 19, 2016).
2
Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v. Arizona, UNITED STATES COURTS,
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-varizona (last visited May 19, 2016).
Reasoning: The U.S. Supreme court actually reviewed four cases when reviewing
Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona was the first case so it became the face of the
judgment. The other cases were: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and
California v. Stewart.2 All the cases were in regards to violation of an individuals 5th
amendment rights.
The court expressed the need for limitations when a person was placed into police
custody or their freedom of movement was restricted. It further said that all suspects must
be advised of their 5th amendment rights prior to questioning. It also stated that once a
person invoked their 5th amendment rights that all questioning would discontinued.
Justice Tom Clark argued that the Due Process Clauses the Constitution would apply to
interrogations. As the majority finds, there is not enough evidence for the need of a new
rule. Judge John Harlan wrote in the second dissent that the Due Process Clauses should
apply and “the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to
forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination”. 3 Justice Byron White argued
against broadening the 5th Amendment, stating that there was no historical support and the
majority was making new law.3
Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. The judgment of the
Supreme Court of Arizona was reversed.
Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark case and probably one of the most well
known cases in the United States. It created what is known today as “Miranda Rights”.
Every law enforcement officer is taught this from day one and most carry a card with
them at all times. Although well known, it is also misunderstood. Many criminals think
you have to read them their rights before they can be arrested.
Case Brief Rubric
(Abbreviated Version)
Category
Points
Format
10/10
Facts
10/10
Issues
7/10
Holding
9/10
Reasoning
35/40
3
Miranda v. Arizona, CASEBRIEFS MIRANDA V ARIZONA COMMENTS,
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/policeinterrogation-and-confessions/miranda-v-arizona-2/2/ (last visited May 19, 2016).
Writing
Bluebook
TOTAL
10 /10
10 /10
Chase,
Good job on this brief. There are several issues in this case, and
it’s more than just whether police have an obligation to notify a
91/100
th
suspect in custody of his 5 Amendment rights. For instance, there’s also the 6th Amendment
right to counsel. Beyond that, you do a good job of capturing the essential parts of the case.
Please try not to quote at length (or at all) from the case but instead put the Court’s thoughts
in your own words. Thank you.
GRADE: 91/100
Please refer to full rubric for more details

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15